Appeal 6004884

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for part retrospective alterations to existing garden levels and proposed boundary treatment at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application reference 25/03611/FU subject to the following condition:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Ref 4175/01 and the Location Plan, which shows the site edged red.

The proposed development is largely complete. I saw that ground levels to the rear of the appeal property have been altered and that replacement boundary fencing has been introduced around the perimeter of the back garden of No 4. Some soft landscaping and surfacing works, however, remain unfinished. The completed elements of the appeal scheme appear to be broadly in accordance with the plans.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with regard to privacy and outlook.

This appeal relates to works undertaken to the rear of the appeal property, which is a detached house within a predominantly residential area. The back garden of No 4 has been regraded to form a series of flat sections at different heights that have replaced a decked area, external steps and sloping land. A replacement boundary fence has also been introduced around the boundary of the back garden with a taller section erected along the rear boundary than its previous counterpart.

The properties most likely to be affected by these changes are 2 and [address], which are situated on either side of the appeal dwelling, and 73 [name], just beyond the rear boundary of the site. Due to the local topography, the appeal property occupies an elevated position relative to the rears of these adjacent dwellings. This relationship is an important consideration in this case given that there is some inter-visibility between the rears of these neighbouring properties.

By introducing flatter and more usable areas, the reconfigured rear garden of No 4 has the potential to allow more sustained views of neighbouring gardens from certain positions than may have previously occurred from the decked area, steps and sloping land. The Council’s concern is that the regrading of the garden, together with the boundary fencing required to mitigate it, has resulted in harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

However, the boundary fencing now in place, together with existing and proposed vegetation would provide a largely effective screen around the back garden of No

While it does not eliminate all views across neighbouring gardens from the site, the fence does restrict the opportunity for direct and sustained overlooking. The remaining views are limited to certain vantage points and are, in my experience, typical of the relationships commonly experienced between adjacent residential gardens, particularly where there are variations in land levels. Having carefully observed the relationship between the site and the rears of Nos 2, 6 and 73, I find that the additional overlooking possible, and any associated perception of being overlooked, would not be so intrusive as to result in material harm to the living conditions of their occupiers.

The replacement fence along the rear boundary of the site is taller than its predecessor, which would be apparent when viewed from the lower-lying garden of No 73. Nevertheless, boundary treatments of a similar height are a common feature in residential environments such as this. Although the elevated position of the fence increases its prominence from the rear of No 73, it would not appear so great as to visually dominate the outlook for their occupiers. In this respect, the fence performs an important mitigating function in limiting overlooking that might otherwise arise from the altered land levels. I find that it represents a proportionate response that does not in itself give rise to unacceptable harm.

Drawing these matters together, the development has altered the relationship between the site and neighbouring properties to a degree. However, it has not resulted in a level of overlooking or dominance that would give rise to material harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, taking into account the combined effect of the altered ground levels and the proposed boundary treatment. As such, there is no conflict with Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review

or Policy HDG2 of the Council’s Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document insofar as they seek to safeguard residential amenity.

As the development has commenced, it is unnecessary to impose a condition limiting the time for implementation. A condition is required, however, in the interests of certainty to define the approved plans.

Overall, there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.